scsi

[bringspeed]

simple opinion question: is a scsi setup worth the extra cash?

[Roy]

It depends on what you want to do. SCSI delivers a much faster data transfer rate. Some devices are SCSI only. SCSI devices can be chained together. In some cases, USB is a good alternative.

[MadMax]

Is a Corvette worth it? http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[GarthLear]

MadMax you seem to have some experience with scsi vs other. Has anyone seen application benchmarks of a scsi drive vs udma66 in a single application, not server and raid apps? We use scsi ( just wide for the most part) on cad workstations, but wondering if udma66 might offer a cheaper alternative without giving up much in a real world application?

[unknown]

one thing,

ata/33--> 33.3mb/s
ata/66--> 66.6mb/s
ultra wide scsi---> 40.0mb/s
ultra 2 wide scisi--->100mb/s

[Danzego]

I think the biggest factor in that decision is why you need it versus price. If price is not an issue and you can afford a full out non-CPU cycle sapping setup, why not? Unless of course you just want SCSI for the sake of having it, not performance increase (money better spent elsewhere). But if you're on a tight budget, SCSI may not be ideal. Right now the only SCSI device I'm running is a Yamaha 4416s burner, but I plan on getting more devices (even though I'm on a budget to a degree). The best reason I see (unless you're talking mondo HD dollars in my case) to go SCSI is keeping IRQ's for other things. Keep in mind there are plenty of SCSI devices such as burners (which are better SCSI-wise), CDROMs (better performance, not too much more pricey), and ZIP drives (not much faster if at all) that don't hit you that much harder in the pocket book than the same IDE device would. These will free up much needed CPU cycles increasing system performance to some degree. Now scanners and to more of a degree, HD's, do cost plenty more (USB is a good option for scanners in this case), but if done correctly a SCSI setup used to just free some resources if you're on a budget won't hurt you that much more than their IDE counterparts.

[Danzego]

I think the biggest factor in that decision is why you need it versus price. If price is not an issue and you can afford a full out non-CPU cycle sapping setup, why not? Unless of course you just want SCSI for the sake of having it, not performance increase (money better spent elsewhere). But if you're on a tight budget, SCSI may not be ideal. Right now the only SCSI device I'm running is a Yamaha 4416s burner, but I plan on getting more devices (even though I'm on a budget to a degree). The best reason I see (unless you're talking mondo HD dollars in my case) to go SCSI is keeping IRQ's for other things. Keep in mind there are plenty of SCSI devices such as burners (which are better SCSI-wise), CDROMs (better performance, not too much more pricey), and ZIP drives (not much faster if at all) that don't hit you that much harder in the pocket book than the same IDE device would. These will free up much needed CPU cycles increasing system performance to some degree. Now scanners and to more of a degree, HD's, do cost plenty more (USB is a good option for scanners in this case), but if done correctly a SCSI setup used to just free some resources if you're on a budget won't hurt you that much more than their IDE counterparts.

[Danzego]

Ooops!! Sorry!!

[Stan]

I have seen in a PC PRO (March 99 edition, I think) a test between the IBM SCSI U2W 9LZX (10k rpm) and the IBM deskstar 22GXP UDM 66(7200rpm).
Well the difference in terms of performance was NOT noticeable.

Now, it all depends on what you want to do with your PC...
IDE will use more of the CPU time.
You can have up to 15 devices with u2w...
The price difference is enormous...

Stan

[bringspeed]

cool. thanks for the hinkfo, guys.